網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

19 May, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Sir DAVID GILL, K.C.B., F.R.S., LL.D., D.SC.

Sir Walter Nugent-continued. case at all. To make an alteration of the hours of work in summer, you do not require to alter them in winter for that purpose.

66

738. Did you find in South Africa, when you were a long distance from a railway, that they really did make the change? They had what they called sun time," which was quite a different thing from railway time ?-Oh, no! even at a long distance from the railway; men have had to catch trains. A great many of the Boer farmers have not clocks at all; they work away; they all start at sun time and shift it about in some way; they know how many hours it takes to get to the station; they guess it, and wait half an hour or so to be sure of being in time. 739. There is no such thing as sun time "?— No, there is no such thing as sun time"; of course there is what the astronomer knows as "apparent time or "apparent noon.'

66

66

740. In the west and south of America, they undoubtedly make changes to meet the longer day in summer and pay no attention whatsoever to time in the towns ?--I think probably the Boer farmer gets up in the morning and turns his "blacks" out when he thinks they ought to go, and they come back at sunset. I dare say that is the case. There are no "work hours" there.

741. So that they really do there for themselves what it is proposed to do now by statute. Where they are not hampered by railways or modern customs they adopt their own ways?--I do not know that there is any one rule about it. They are a very haphazard kind of people generally, and they will do anything. The only objection I ever heard was that when we shifted the time first of all there was an old gentleman who would always come into church a quarter of an hour late, because he declared it was God's time and not the other, the curious thing being that the new shift of time was more nearly that of the meridian of his church.

[blocks in formation]

746. Now as to the mode of doing it-getting the people to use the summer daylight moredo you recognise that the law books are full of statutes regulating the nominal time of various kinds of trade transactions, for factories, public houses, banks, railways, and that a great mass of legislation is full of nominal time, do you recognise that?-I suppose so, nearly all with reference to noon," which is not to be altered. 747. Of course is meridian.' 66 Noon" is not so much of the clock at all. You do not call 12 o'clock Greenwich noon time" except by putting the two together?-Do not all

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

noon

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

Mr. Pearce-continued.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the law books talk of noon on a certain day? 748. When they do, they refer to the time of the clock which is nearest to "noon"; for instance, if we say "11 o'clock in the forenoon or, 12 o'clock at noon, we do not mean noon, but simply "12 o'clock at noon." I will make it clear in this way. With regard to the "sun time," noon time is fifteen minutes ahead of the clock and 15 minutes behind the clock in the course of the year?—Yes, in the course of the

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

750. Yes, when an Act of Parliament speaks of nominal time?-These are legal questions, on which I am not competent to give an opinion.

751. I want to ask your opinion about it. When an Act of Parliament says you shall open at 8 o'clock in the morning and close at 8 o'clock at night, that is by the clock?--Yes, I suppose so.

752. You will take it from me that there are a great multitude of that sort of cases in the law books?-Yes.

753. Now as to the mode of doing it, is it better to pass an Act of Parliament, or a great many Acts of Parliament, that all these times shall be altered in the summer, or is it better by one short Act like this to bring all these things into regulation ?-But the times are here, and why change them.

754. I am asking you which you suppose is the better mode of doing it. We are aiming at the same thing, we are aiming at using summer daylight. Now, would you alter by Act of Parliament all the times of factories, public houses, theatres, and all the other places that are regulated by clock time-by an Act of Parliament drawn like this, or by an Act of Parliament applying to every particular industry throughout the country?-I would not alter the clock on any account whatever, for fear of making horrible confusion.

755. Surely the clock is only an instrument? -It is far from being only an instrument. If you are regulating everything by the clock, then by shifting the clock time about you are making confusion.

756. I rather gathered, from what you said just now, that there was no occasion to regulate our action by the clock?-When did I say that.

757. I understood you to say so in answer to Mr. Holt?-Whenever did I say so; there is no necessity to alter the clock.

758. You said there was no necessity to regulate action by the clock. We could all get up earlier in the summer if we chose ?-Exactly, but not alter the clock.

759. Now as to the best mode of expressing common opinion, and so on: as regards these 15 million men that Mr. Richards spoke of, is not an Act of Parliament the best mode of expressing a common agreement ?-Yes, but an Act of Parliament should not be made without the consent of the people to it.

760. We are not suggesting that that should be done. An Act of Parliament cannot be made without the consent of the people in this country, whatever

19 May, 1908.]

Sir DAVID GILL, K.C.B., F.R.S., LL.D., D.SC.

Mr. Pearce-continued. whatever they can do at the Cape Colony ?—No, but you may in a great hurry get through an Act of which you do not quite fully see the end.

761. We have asked you to be good enough to come, and you have come, to prevent that, and we are going to look into it very carefully. By and bye, when the people have all agreed that it is better to use summer daylight, cannot it most effectually be done, as you have said, by an Act of Parliament ?-Most certainly.

762. If that were done, you would not call that cheating, would you ?-Not if it was fully explained.

Chairman.

763. You said just now that in matters of this kind it is best that legislation should follow, and not precede, any public desire for any change? -Yes.

764. Will you tell me how it would be possible to ascertain accurately what public opinion would require in a case of this kind ?-For example, Mr. Willett here has got some two hundred and odd Members of Parliament to consent to this, without fully considering (and many of them, I am sure, have not fully considered), what it would mean to alter the clock eight times in the year, and the confusion which would be created thereby.

765. That is only choice of methods, but what I am asking is, how it would be humanly possible to arrive at any practical ascertainment of the public view as regards any necessity for a change of this sort. You said just now that, in spite of the 250 Members who have given their adhesion to this scheme, you do not think many of them have practically considered it ?-A great many have not, they are caught by the idea of saving daylight without the subsequent difficulties which, in my humble opinion, are certain to arise.

766. What sort of public manifestation would satisfy you?-I am not a legislator or a Member of Parliament. I do not pretend to say how these things should be done.

767. You started off by saying that this is a Bill to cheat people into getting up earlycompelling them to get up early?-Apparently Mr. Willett denied that it was.

768. Do you think that if you afforded people opportunities of getting up early, that is to say, if they had anything to do, if they got up earlier that would be an incentive and an inducement to do it?-Possibly, but people who have to do work must get up at the time it has to be done. I used to get up at very uncomfortable hours— three and four in the morning to do astronomical observations that could be done at no other time. 769. Exactly, but is it not possible that the reason why people do not get up early in the morning now, might be because they have got the reasonable excuse that, if they get up, there is nothing for them to do ?-Quite so.

770. And that some sort of re-arrangement of time in this country would give an enormous stimulus and fillip to people to get up earlier, and get through their work earlier, and have more time for recreation ?-Get the employers of labour and the schools to open earlier in the summer, and the whole thing is done.

Chairman-continued.

[Continued.

771. The employers ?-The employers and the schoolmasters, and schools to open earlier in the summer time, get it done by Act of Parliament after you have sufficiently ventilated the matter.

772. What period of time would you think necessary for the ventilation of the matter?— I think if you could manage to put the hours an hour earlier in the summer time.

773. You say it would have to be done by legislation ?-After the world generally-the people had sufficiently considered it, if they are willing to get up at that time.

774. Yes, I quite agree, but what I am trying to get at, is your mind as to the practicability of arriving at this general consensus of public opinion before legislation can be undertaken. How do you propose that it should be done, by what sort of agitation or public manifestation, by which Parliament could consider itself justified in proceeding to legislation, because the whole thing is there. Your view seems to be that it might be done by voluntary arrangements and so on, that is to say by telling employers and schoolmasters that they ought to get up earlier ?-If, for example, the Government controls the schools, it would be quite possible to shift the time one hour forward.

775. That is only one branch. You have railway companies, you have steamboats, and one example you gave was banks ?-Quite so.

The whole thing would be to ask people to advance their hours one hour in the longer day.

776. Do you know that past experience has shown absolutely, as regards the establishment of Bank Holidays, as regards the abstention from work on Sundays, and so on, that it cannot possibly be done; that you cannot have a universal adherence to any arrangement of that sort unless it has legislative sanction behind it ?-Well, gentlemen, you are all Members of Parliament, you know what your constituents think, I suppose, and I should suggest, if your constituents are prepared to agree with it, that you make a law to shift all the hours an hour forward, shift all the office time an hour forward in summer, and so on. If you carry the present Bill you will not help matters at all if people will not follow these hours. That is the point.

777. You would give them opportunities of doing something if they did get up earlier ?-How, under this Bill, would you do it?

778. By putting on the time when work begins. Take the case of a bank: if the law says that for banks the hour is nine o'clock instead of the hour being eight, according to Greenwich time, there is much more chance of the bank opening earlier than there would be if you left things as they are now. Do not you agree to that? If in the mind of all the world, instead of being half-past twelve here it was half-past one, you would have been three hours or four hours at work instead of two hours or three hours ?-People accommodate themselves more or less to the sun, as you have very properly said, and the nominal hours of working, except where they are fixed by law, will certainly accommodate themselves again if you pass this Bill. People will say: "Oh, hang it! there is not light enough in the morning; we

19 May, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Sir DAVID GILL, K.C.B., F.R.S., LL.D., D.Sc.

Chairman-continued.

will have breakfast half an hour later," and it

will I go on in that way. And the great point would be, if you would pass a law in some way-I do not say it is to be done, but that is the proper wayexcite the public mind to it first; let it be gone about in the same persistent way that Mr. Willett has gone about this.

779. That is the particular object of this Bill. It is to stimulate and excite the public mind. There is no question of compelling anybody to open at eight who wishes to open at ten ?-But you are going to practically force all the railways to shift their clocks.

780. No. In what way? There is not a word of it in the Bill. I am afraid you have rather insufficiently studied the provisions of this Bill. There is not a word of it. All the Bill says is that there shall be a short hour four weeks in April, and a long hour four weeks in September; you may follow that time, or you may have a time of your own?—It seems to me to be the most unscientific and undesirable method of going about the thing that I can imagine.

781. The method may be undesirable, but is the object desirable ?-I do not get up myself, unfortunately, very early in the morning; I am quite sure that it would be better for me if I did. 782. Do not you think it would add to the economy to which Mr. Richards has referred ?To me it would be hateful, from the scientific point of view and from the practical point of view, to shift the clocks; and if you do not shift the clocks your Bill is not worth a pinch of snuff in any direction.

783. So that if a choice between some sort of alteration of time were given-assuming that by some extraordinary mental phenomena you were in favour of some alteration of the time-would you prefer the piecemeal alteration, or a sixmonthly alteration ?-I would prefer the sixmonthly alteration, but not a setting of the clocks.

784. One hour?--I would prefer a six-monthly alteration, just as the railways alter their time tables.

785. How long would you prefer the alteration to be for-for what period ?-Five or six months. 786. But an alteration of how much ?-An hour.

787. An hour-a fixed hour in the summer months ?-Give an hour in the summer months.

788. How would the passage of this scheme affect the South African time; how would it affect business hours between this country and South Africa?-The business hours of this country and South Africa? Cape time is two hours fast of Greenwich time at present.

789. Two hours ?-Two hours; that is to say, the civil time of the Cape is two hours faster than Greenwich at the present moment.

790. Do you apprehend any considerable dislocation of business arrangements if this

Chairman-continued.

41

[Continued.

are

scheme were passed ?-If the Cape were to adopt your proposed plan, it would be just making things far worse, instead of far better. In the southern hemisphere, where the seasons reversed, we have the long days in December and the short days in June; and, of course, to adopt any such twisting about of the clocks to suit the corresponding times of England which are proposed in this Bill would make double the differences there in the wrong direction; it would never do at all.

791. You are aware that the confusion that existed formerly as regards international arrangements was largely put an end to by the adoption of the even meridian hour?-It was the even meridian hour.

792. Do not you consider that that was an arbitrary arrangement; it was a shifting of the clock-It was an arbitrary arrangement which has been found an exceedingly practicable one.

793. Precisely; and may not the same arrangement in the case we are considering be found equally expedient and practicable ?-The arrangement of the Bill implies the shifting of the clocks. It implies it--I do not say it is done by saying that you shall shift every clock-but it implies the shifting of every kind of clock, and that is a most impracticable arrangement, because it will lead to confusion eight times in a year.

794. Then if it were done permanently your objections would be met, would they not?I would not change the clocks at all.

795. But just see; they have had to change the clocks permanently in Mid-Europe ?-What good would that do?

796. What good has it done in Mid-Europe, their changing their clocks and bringing them into harmony with Greenwich time ?-They have not brought them into harmony with the Greenwich time; they have made them about an hour different from Greenwich time, so that if a telegram comes from Berlin at a certain hour the telegraph office here simply alters the nominal time one hour to show when it was sent from Berlin, and gives the corresponding Greenwich time straight away.

797. It is nevertheless the fact that the alteration in European time was based upon Greenwich time ?-Certainly.

798. To the extent of an hour extra, MidEuropean time, and two hours. extra East European time ?-The system extends all round. the world, and in the same way.

799. And, generally, you consider that any shifting upon that basis would not be desirable? -It would upset a scheme that has been brought about quietly by the mere merit of its goodness.

800. Though it has been done in Europe successfully?-The hour meridian system has worked in Europe successfully, and in America too; it has nothing to do with saving daylight. (The Witness withdrew.)

Professor ARTHUR A. RAMBAUT, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.A.S., F.R.S., called in; and Examined.

[blocks in formation]

19 May, 1908.]

Professor RAMBAUT, M.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.

Chairman-continued.

803. And Professor of Astronomy in the University of Dublin ?-Yes.

804. You are still in the occupation of those posts? No, I resigned in the year 1897.

[ocr errors]

805. You say here, I am Radcliffe Observer"? -I am still Radcliffe Observer; I thought you referred to the Irish appointments.

806. I see you have given a long table showing mean Greenwich time at which the sun rises and sets at latitude 51, 53, 55 and 57 degrees ?—Yes.

807. What is the object of that ?That is to illustrate a point which I see now is within the knowledge of the Committee-the extent to which the hours of daylight are wasted. I take, for instance, the case of a person in one of the lower latitudes in England, 51°, who rises at 6 o'clock and whose occupation is not over till 6 p.m., and even there he sleeps away in the morning almost exactly half of the sunlight hours available for recreation, whereas in the more northern latitudes, as the table will show, if he rises at 6 o'clock and ceases work at 6 o'clock, the sun will have risen two hours and three-quarters before he gets up, and will set two hours and three-quarters after he has ceased work; so that he gets only half the sunlight which he might otherwise have enjoyed.

808. Do you think on the whole that four steps of altering the clock by twenty minutes each afford the best method of bringing about the desired change?-I do. I think the abruptness of the single change that was suggested-that it should be made in one step of an hour-would render it very unpopular, and probably people would not adopt it. It would mean that the people rising at about 6 o'clock (the working classes more particularly, perhaps) would be asked, if it began early in April, to rise before the sun-to rise an hour earlier than they do now. Well, on the 1st April the sun will rise at 5.42.

809. They would be asked to rise at 3.42 if the hours of change were made?—No, those who rise at six would be asked to rise at five, whereas the sun would not rise until 5:42 mean Greenwich time. If they rose at the nominal hour of 6 o'clock, it would correspond to the present Greenwich 5 o'clock, and the sun would not be up until 5.42 by the same time; either that, or the change would have to be postponed till a later date of the year. If it were postponed till May

810. I do not like disturbing you, but surely your objection seems to be rather based upon the view that this Bill is going to compel people to rise at a certain hour of the day. It does nothing of the sort. What it says is that you can get up earlier if you like-you can adjust the hour of your getting up, the light affords you an opportunity of getting some work to do if you do get up earlier. Do you follow that?—Yes.

811. My only point is to ask you whether you do not think that the change of a complete hour for six months of the year would in all respects be preferable to the piecemeal change?-No, I do not; I think for one thing there would be less sunlight gained, and for another such a change would ask those who did wish to alter their habits to alter them too abruptly.

812. May I ask you how you make out that

Chairman-continued.

[Continued.

less daylight would be obtained if the whole hour change were made right off instead of being made gradually. I should have thought it would be the other way about ?—I have not actually made the calculation, but I think the effect is clear from a graphic representation of it; a change of an hour made at once, even if it began on the 1st April, would not be so favourable as four steps of 20 minutes each. Before I could speak positively as to that, I would have to calculate it, but I think it is fairly obvious. It would certainly be true in the more northern parts of these islands. You see in summer by the proposed change we should gain an hour and 20 minutes in the months of May, June, July and August, instead of an hour, whereas in April and September, according to the present scheme, we should not gain quite an hour, but the balance would be in favour of Mr. Willett's scheme, I believe. I thought that one of the points to which attention was drawn by a member of the Committee was that the working classes change their breakfast hour in summer time, and that that was probably due to the fact that the change in the time of opening factories was abrupt a sudden change of an hour and a half; consequently the workpeople found it inconvenient to breakfast an hour. and a half earlier, but I think if the change was made gradually they would probably breakfast at nominally the same hour without any serious dislocation of their habits.

813. You are aware of the changes that were made in South African time, are you not?——Yes, I have seen Sir David Gill's account of it, and I was aware of the fact from other sources, but I think there is one point connected with it to which sufficient attention has not been drawn. In that case there were a number of different local times in use at various parts of the country-each considerable town, I understand, had its own local time, and the problem was to bring all these various local times into harmony with one common standard time for the whole colony-a much more complicated problem than that which this Bill proposes to deal with. Each different local time had to be corrected in a separate way and different instructions had to be issued to different places, but according to Sir David Gill's account the change was brought about without difficulty, and I think if people in a colony like South Africa-who are not accustomed to such changes-could do this, not only once, but follow it up with a second change from one standard time to another without difficulty, in this country a change which everybody would be prepared to submit to could be effected with very little difficulty.

814. Except that it would be leading to permanent changes, whereas this is a periodical change liable to constant shifting?-Yes, but I think people would very quickly learn to make the change.

815. Would you recommend the local synchronisation of time, as regards clocks in great public establishments?—I do not think that would offer any serious difficulty; it could be done.

816. No, no difficulty except the expense. You think it would be the best way of doing it, but

19 May, 1908.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

Professor RAMBAUT, M.A., D.SC., F.R.A.S., F.R.S.

Chairman-continued.

but that the expense might in some cases discourage people from resorting to it ?-I do not think the expense would be anything like what would be saved in other ways. In electrical control of clocks, for instance, if a change were made in the master clock, the other changes would follow at once.

817. Do you think that were the provisions of this Bill to come into force a great impetus would be given to greater economy in the matter of electrical synchronisation of clocks, owing to the fact that there would be more people wanting that kind of adjustment of their time. Would there be more enterprise started, and consequently greater economy, less expense than it costs now to have the clocks made right ?—I have not considered that question.

818. It would become an all-important question, would it not?-I am afraid I am hardly prepared to give an opinion upon that.

819. Some sort of central institution, or institutions, to adjust the mass of clocks in the country -you have not considered it ?--I have not considered the question of the costs of the electrical control. I do not think the adjustment of public clocks would be a very serious trouble. Every public clock now has some watchmaker who makes it his business to wind it up and keep it in order, and if he understands the change and when it should be effected, there ought to be no difficulty.

Mr. Pearce.

820. Supposing the change which was thought most convenient for the public was a change of one hour in the summer, what time would you recommend that it should take place-the 1st May-The 1st May would occasion a diminution of the advantage to be gained; we should not gain so much each time, and my case is, assuming that this might be the best course, then what is the best date for it; is the 1st May the best date for it? I think I should be more inclined to put it about the middle of April.

821. You think the 15th April?—Yes, I think about that.

822. What would be the best day for making the corresponding change at the end of four or five months?-I should say the 1st September in that case.

823. The 1st September ?-That would bring the sunrise at about six o'clock.

824. The 1st September, you think?—Yes, on the 1st September the sun would rise about six o'clock, according to the nominal time, or more accurately so about the third week in August.

825. The third week in August, you say? That would be the ideal thing.

826. As a matter of experience, you would select a Sunday for the change?-I think so.

827. An early Sunday morning ?-I think so;

I think that has distinct advantages. 828. Let me put another case to you. Suppose the change was an hour and a half change that is three changes instead of four ?-Three changes of half an hour each ? 829. Yes. What would be the best times for those changes? As I understand you, you think

M

Mr. Pearce-continued.

43

[Continued.

that Sundays would be best for that?--I think perhaps the second, third and fourth in April.

830. You think the second, third and fourth Sundays in April would be best for making the change of half an hour each ?-Yes, it would introduce least change, it would bring the time of sunrise more nearly to the same hour.

831. And for the change in September would you say the first three Sundays or not?-The first three in September would be advisable, I think.

832. You think so?-Yes, I think the first three Sundays in September would be the best. 833. Do you not think there would be a public convenience in having the same Sundays, that is to say, in April and September--the first three Sundays in April and the first three Sundays in Sepember?--It would make a little difference in point of sunlight, just at the early hours of the morning. That would be a matter of conveni

ence.

834. What do you think-supposing you had to put it into an Act yourself?--I do not see that it would make much matter whether the first three or the last three were selected.

835. Then the public convenience would certainly be to have a definite time well known-the first three Sundays in April and the first three Sundays in September ?-Perhaps that might work best.

836. Do you not realise that that is so ?Possibly it would be best.

837. Yes, "possibly"; in that case the change proposed only affects about four or four and a half months in the year, namely, summer time, speaking roughly?—Yes, it affects six months as at present proposed-four changes of 20 minutes.

838. No; May, June, July, August-that only makes four ?-But April and September would be partially affected.

839. I know, but that is only for the purpose of bringing about the change?--Yes.

840. We have been discussing here the desirability of a change made permanent for a year?Yes.

841. I gather from what you say that you agree that we ought not to have a that we ought not to have a change made for seven and a half months, or eight months, for the sake of a change of four or four and a half months? -I beg your pardon.

842. If you make a change for a short time, and there is no occasion for the change for a longer time, that is to say if we are making a change for the summer time, it is not desirable to do more? -Yes.

843. The suggestion is that this change should extend all the year round?-I do not think we should get any advantage at all then.

you

844. I am not asking you that. I am asking whether it would not be a detriment to make a change for four or four and a half months extend to twelve months. when you might leave the other four or four and a half by themselves?—I am certainly of that opinion.

845. Now I have got that clear. Have you considered the hour of the day at which the change ought to be made? The proposal in the Bill is between two and three o'clock in the morning

8*

on

« 上一頁繼續 »